Strict liability applies to inherently dangerous activities, and negligence must be established for compensation claims.

1. This intra - court appeal by the then State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of Jammu & Kashmir) and four others is directed against the judgment dated 1.2.2017 passed by the learned single Judge ('the writ court') in OWP No. 192/2004 titled 'Manjeet Kour v. State of J&K'. In terms of the judgment impugned, the respondents herein have been held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 11,50,000 minus a sum of Rs. 50,000, already granted by way of interim compensation, along with interest at 7.5 per cent to be apportioned among the respondents as per the detail given in the judgment itself.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the judgment impugned, we deem it appropriate to give brief factual background leading to the filing of this appeal.

Predecessor - in - interest of the respondents, namely, Raghuvir Singh got electrocuted on 5.3.2003 at about 5 a.m. when he inadvertently came into contact with live / exposed electric transformer. The incident was reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 23 dated 5.3.2003 came to be registered in Police Station Miran Sahib, Tehsil R.S. Pura. The body of the deceased was subjected to post - mortem wherein the doctors found the deceased having died due to burn injuries received on different parts of the body. The respondents approached the appellants with a claim for compensation but the same was refuted by the appellants on the ground that the deceased Raghuvir Singh had lost his life due to his own negligence and, therefore, the appellant - department was not obliged to compensate them. Feeling helpless and dejected, the respondents filed OWP No. 192/2004, which was considered by the writ court and disposed of vide judgment impugned dated 1.2.2017.

3. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants primarily on the ground that the writ court has allowed the writ petition and granted compensation to the respondents without returning a specific finding as to negligence of the appellant - department. It is argued that the incident of electrocution, which consumed life of the deceased, happened due to negligence of the deceased, who had strayed into the live electric transformer kept away from the road at a secured place. The appellants have also found fault with the judgment impugned in respect of the computation of compensation made by the writ court, in that, it is contended that in view of the settled legal position enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the wife and four minor children were entitled to Rs. 40,000 each on account of loss of consortium whereas the writ court has granted Rs. 1,00,000 to the wife and Rs. 50,000 each to the children under this head.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ court is perfectly legal and unquestionable. The writ court has returned a clear finding with regard to negligence of the appellants in maintaining and securing the exposed electric transformer installed on the roadside.

5. The aforesaid finding has been returned by the writ court on the basis of report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, i.e., Munsiff, R.S. Pura, who was directed by the writ court to conduct such inquiry and submit a report to it. It has clearly come out in the inquiry that the appellant - department had not put up any signboard or marking in front of the transformer to caution the people to stay away. The Inquiry Officer also f